Re: SUO: MOTION
i second Awbrey's motion.
john-josef costandi
======================
Jon Awbrey wrote:
> Pat Hayes wrote:
> >
> > I imagine that its prime purpose was to render harmless
> > to Cycorp the SUO and all similar efforts, insofar as
> > they might be seen as in any way competitive. Notice
> > that the agreement requires that any use of any axioms
> > which are *logically equivalent* to any part of Cyc,
> > even if translated into any other natural or artificial
> > language, must be credited to Cycorp. This means that
> > if one uses any part of the Cyc upper ontology and if
> > they also assert that, say, every relation is a thing,
> > or that spatial containment is transitive, then they
> > must acknowledge that Cycorp owns the copyright to
> > that assertion, even if it is made in, say, EPISTLE,
> > or even in English, and even if they had said it before
> > in other places; in fact, even if Aristotle had said
> > it before. The hubris of claiming ownership of all
> > statements which are logically equivalent to a fair
> > amount of human common sense is quite astonishing.
> >
> > Pat Hayes
>
> ¤~~~~~~~~~¤~~~~~~~~~¤~~~~~~~~~¤~~~~~~~~~¤~~~~~~~~~¤
>
> The last time I checked it,
> all axioms, and all truths,
> are "logically equivalent".
>
> I, for one, have no interest in working under this sort of condition.
> If the interpretation of Pat Hayes is true, then all I offer is this:
>
> MOTION, in order to dissociate the IEEE SUO Working Group from
> any and all encumbrances and entanglements with Cycorp's rider,
> that all of those who do choose to work under this rider form
> a separate entity, after the manner of "Cyc User's Group", or
> some other formulation of their own devising, and cease acting
> to divert the other participants of the IEEE SUO Working Group
> into taking up this unwanted onus.
>
> Respectfully Submitted,
>
> Jon Awbrey
>
> ¤~~~~~~~~~¤~~~~~~~~~¤~~~~~~~~~¤~~~~~~~~~¤~~~~~~~~~¤